Forum:Article format ideas
It's come to my attention, that the formatting here isn't the best. Originally, I thought it would work, but many editors have been confused and/or didn't like the style. I'm starting to feel a formatting change for wrestler articles needs some changing at least. Here's a brief point by point description of what we have now, and a suggestion for a different format. *Current Format (I helped make this format a while ago, due to long pages as well as people just copying straight from Wikipedia with no changes) -Introduction (a few sentences describing where they wrestle now, if they are a current champ, and so on) -Facts (which include managers, teams, finishing moves and more) -Championships and accomplishments section (for titles they've held, as well as awards and other achievements) -See also section which includes career history, event history, gimmicks and storylines) *Suggested new format (This will appply to a majority of wrestler articles, with some exceptions. If it's a newer wrestler, then all information can go on the page. Or if it's an announcer, then all information should fit fine without being a length problem.) -Introduction -Career history (which will include gimmick histories and storylines, unless it's extra long: such as Personas of The Undertaker) -Facts -Championships and accomplishments -See also section (which will only be event history to cut down on some of the length of the main wrestler page). The only thing I don't want: Wikipedia copying with nothing new added. At times, editors have came here just for that, which doesn't make much sense. This isn't meant to be a direct copy of the wrestling information at that site. What does everyone think? Feel free to suggest other ideas as well. If anyone has suggestions for formatting other types of articles, post them here as well. RobJ1981 07:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC) :Yeah, the merging of Gimmick histories and career history may be for the better. I am very much a fan of the current set-up, but I personally would like to see a small summary of the wrestler in question on their main page, if only to make them stand out and be a bit more informative. --AuronKaizer 15:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC) ::The issue that I've had with the page format is that it strips out a lot of the stuff that's interesting and fun. I think the pages can have a lot more than just the basic stats -- pictures, videos, magazine covers, quotes, trivia. All the fun stuff that Wikipedia won't allow you to add. I'd like to emphasize pictures a bit more -- wrestlers are interesting and fun, and the visuals are a big part of what makes them cool. ::Shawn and I are setting up a couple of examples, so you see what I mean -- the first one is Hulk Hogan. What do you think? -- Danny (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC) :::It looks good so far, however my big issue is: too many images leads to slowdowns when people are viewing the page. The same goes for when there is too much text. Also, let's try not to repeat information. The hall of fame information is listed in trivia and in the championships and accomplishments section. Other than those issues, I believe that style could be added to most wrestler articles. RobJ1981 04:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC) ::::I'm glad you like it so far! I'm not sure why you're having trouble with slowdowns -- The pages load really fast for me. I know that you're on kind of an old computer... ::::I just loaded that Hulk Hogan page and then checked the source code -- it says the page was served in .11 seconds. Looking at , the longest page on the wiki is Wrestling holds, with 77,000 bytes. I just loaded that page, and it was served in .61 seconds. ::::Maybe I'm on a faster connection? I dunno. Is anybody else having problems loading these pages? -- Danny (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC) :::::Not everyone has a fast computer. My computer is slow at times. I don't think it's fair for people with slow computers to suffer, just because an article is full of numerous photos. A page with just text loads a lot quicker than one with images. We don't need to clutter up one page with lots of images if we don't need to. I think we need to determine some sort of subpaging for many of the images, otherwise all the articles will be loading slow for people. I know you don't think people visit subpages, but they do. Why should only people with fast computers enjoy the site? That's not fair at all. RobJ1981 20:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC) ::::::Yeah, I'm just trying to figure out what a good balance is. The site shouldn't only be for people with extra-fast computers, but it also shouldn't be designed just for super-slow computers. I think you might be extra sensitive to page loading times... ::::::Can you do me a favor and check something? Load up that Hulk Hogan page and then hit Command-U -- that should bring up the source code in a separate window. In that window, hit Ctrl-F and do a search for the phrase served by. You'll see a bit of code that says something like . Try doing that, and paste the code here. I'm just curious about how long it's taking for these pages to load for you. ::::::Anyway, I'm going to work on setting up a template to help make the subpages more visible. We'll keep working on it... -- Danny (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC) :Extra sensitive? I take offense to that remark. I don't appreciate comments like that. RobJ1981 17:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC) ::Rob, I'm really sorry -- I didn't mean that as an insult at all. You're concerned about the page loading times; that's a good balance for me, because I'm much more likely to put as much on a page as possible. I'm going to work on putting together a template that I think may help, so that stuff can go on subpages without being hidden as much. ::Meanwhile, I think it would help me a lot if I understood better what you think the limits should be -- how many images on a page, what an appropriate load time should be for a page. How long is it taking to load the Hulk Hogan page right now? Is it closer to two seconds, or thirty seconds? -- Danny (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC) :::It took more than 30 seconds to load it. I wanted to point out: the latest news bar goes right through the image on the page. Do you see that too, or is it just my computer? Perhaps a limit of 10 or less images per page. A photo for the infobox, plus some other images. The rest can be subpaged. Lastly, people shouldn't be encouraged to just click, because they see a certain template. If people are interested in the subject, they will click the link. RobJ1981 20:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)